Why the study?
Does cardiac magnetic resonance imaging accurately detect and characterize myocardial viability?
Does cardiac magnetic resonance imaging accurately detect and characterize myocardial viability?
Cardiac magnetic resonance is a safe, accurate, and preferred imaging modality for assessing myocardial viability in clinical practice.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports CMR preference for viability; leaves open need for prospective outcome trials.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging has an expanding role as a preferred modality for the detection and characterization of myocardial viability. RECENT FINDINGS: Improving the accuracy of cardiac magnetic resonance for detecting viable myocardium has been one focus of investigators. In segments with intermediate transmurality of late gadolinium enhancement, dobutamine response improves the predictive power of cardiac magnetic resonance. A subtractive imaging technique with both short and long inversion times can enhance discrimination of subendocardial infarction and blood pool, but with increased noise and misregistration artifacts. Similar pharmacokinetics between cardiac magnetic resonance contrast agents and computed tomography contrast allows delayed enhancement imaging with computed tomography. Contrast between normal segments and scar remains vastly superior with cardiac magnetic resonance and no radiation is administered. Quantitation of blood flow demonstrated that resting myocardial blood flow is reduced in hibernating myocardium. SUMMARY: Because of its safety, accuracy, ease of interpretation, and increasing availability, cardiac magnetic resonance-based assessment of myocardial viability has quickly transitioned from bench to bedside. Routine clinical implementation has prompted improved diagnostic capabilities and easier image interpretation. As a research tool, cardiac magnetic resonance continues to provide valuable insights into the fundamental nature of viability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Isbell et al. (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: